Prez Gizzy 3000

Prez Gizzy 3000 BECAUSE A COUNTRY IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE

I’m going to write a little book of political thought here which you know it’s a free book if nothing else! There’s not...
08/14/2026

I’m going to write a little book of political thought here which you know it’s a free book if nothing else!

There’s not a whole lot of intelligent people that wouldn’t love to live in a system like Denmark , but there has to be some acknowledgment of how it ended up there and of what it actually is!

And then to go further for America, people have to know who to align with politically if they want to have what Denmark has — who’s gonna be able to get that done — who stands for that.

Right now there’s massive confusion in the American public of what it would really take and the people who aren’t confused are being posed as enemies of the idea and people don’t know what they don’t know.

There has to be a much deeper analysis because taxes are only accomplishable through the agreement of the public.

Denmark is only 6 million people. Most of them have the same demographic, they are primarily DANES with shared cultural values.

MORE INPORTABTLY DENMARK IS HYPER FREE CAPITALIST ! It combines hyper-FREE capitalist, free-market business rules with a massive, socialist-style tax and welfare safety net.

Their Liberal AKA Free Market economic approach allows easy Hiring and Firing!! Denmark has almost no government-mandated job security laws, making it exceptionally easy for companies to downsize.

They have No Minimum Wage Laws. The government does not set a national minimum wage; pay rates are negotiated directly between unions and employer associations.

THEY ARE SUPER Pro-Business Climate! Denmark consistently ranks near the top of global indexes for "Ease of Doing Business" due to low bureaucracy and open trade.

They have a huge tax burden // the total tax revenue accounts for over 43% of Denmark's GDP, which is among the highest in the world.

To put this into perspective, let’s just say it’s kind of like Manhattan. Actually, on any given day, Manhattan has double the actual full population of the country called Denmark.

Denmark's financial engine is built on broad taxation and competitive private industries.

Denmark collects roughly 43% to 45% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in taxes, making its overall tax burden one of the highest in the world.

Personal income taxes are highly progressive, with the top bracket reaching a combined rate of roughly 55.9%.

They participate in VAT — Unlike the U.S. sales tax system, Denmark levies a steep 25% VAT on almost all consumer goods and services.

Denmark excels in highly profitable, innovative knowledge sectors that build strong corporate tax revenues — then the service sector—including finance, tourism, and tech—makes up nearly 75% of the entire Danish economy.

Denmark is home to massive multinational corporations. Key money-makers include pharmaceuticals (such as Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic), maritime shipping (Maersk), and wind energy technology (Vestas).

Denmark's labor market combines flexible hiring/firing laws for businesses with robust safety nets for workers. This keeps unemployment exceptionally low (2.9%) and keeps the majority of the population employed and paying into the tax pool.

FundsDenmark avoids massive government debt because of a unique, parallel system created in the late 1980s by conservative right economists.

Danish unions and employers bypassed politicians to build mandatory, worker-owned pension funds. Today, these funds hold over $800 billion, giving the 6 million citizens incredible financial security that the state budget does not have to fully subsidize.

Denmark's small population size is a major advantage when managing a social safety net. Because the population is relatively small and culturally tight-knit, there is a very high level of social cohesion and trust.

Citizens are generally willing to pay high taxes because they see the direct, high-quality returns in their daily lives, such as free university tuition (highly competitive for entry) and clean public transit and other things people note upon visiting.

CHAPTER 2

PEOPLE THAT LOVE THIS IDEA OF DENMARK ALSO FIGHT THE PRESIDENT EVEN AS HE’S MATCHING THEIR IDEA SO FOR EXAMPLE, TRUMP IS FAR MORE ALIGNED WITH DENMARK THAN BIDEN / OBAMA OR ANY DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT in the last few decades.

Denmark's model prides itself on a highly competitive, low-regulation business environment, which shares similarities with Trump's economic focus of Corporate Deregulation. Trump strongly advocates for cutting government regulations to stimulate business growth, which mirrors Denmark's emphasis on minimizing corporate red tape.

Also the entire MAGA movement is at root an Economic Nationalist movement exactly like Denmark! Denmark is a pro-free-trade nation, BUT BUT BUT its model is designed to fiercely protect domestic economic competitiveness, a goal shared by Trump's "America First" business focus. Classically this is anti-tariff but in America’s case tariffs are important to this goal.

WHERE THE DIFFERENCE LAYS IS IN TAXATION —

The defining feature of Denmark's economy is its MASSIVE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD tax intake used to fund universal public services. This is where Trump diverges and directly opposes the Danish approach.

Trump champions lowering personal and corporate income taxes because in the population of 400 million that pushes the economy more than it ever would with just 6 million !!! Denmark, by contrast, relies on some of the highest income tax rates in the world (up to ~56%) to function.

Trump generally favors reducing federal spending on social safety nets and privatizing services. Again, because federal spending is responsible for the whole nation and becomes overwhelmingly administratively impossible becomes a bureaucratic mess when you try to apply it as a managing agent of services when it would be back done by independent communities.

Denmark’s model is entirely built on universal, state-run healthcare, free education, and heavily subsidized childcare.

Trump sees this as something that is applied to the United States as big as it is it’s going to become a mess much like the Medicaid Medicare system is currently a mess!

Also Denmark's entire economy relies on powerful labor unions that negotiate wages and benefits directly with employers, bypassing government mandates entirely.

Trump has a complex relationship with labor; while his platform heavily appeals to working-class union members, traditional American conservative policies generally favor "Right-to-Work" laws that weaken union power, which runs counter to the institutional union power seen in Denmark.

The unions here in the United States operate differently and with more corruption than they do in Denmark — that’s why business owners in the United States do not favor unions but they do in Denmark bc it has very low corruption!

Denmark is consistently ranked by agencies as the least corrupt country in the world (scoring 89/100). This deep-seated institutional integrity applies directly to labor organizations.

Danish unions are tightly regulated regarding financial bookkeeping. Their budgets, executive salaries, and strike funds are entirely transparent and subject to PUBLIC audit.

Forced Memberships: Denmark does not have "union shops" (where you are required by law to join a union to keep a job). Such as AT THE MET OR NYCB OR ABT ! You have to join the union to work there!

Because membership is 100% voluntary, unions must remain highly effective and clean to convince roughly 67% to 70% of the workforce to keep paying dues. If a union becomes corrupt, its members simply stop paying and leave.

Trump has frequently accused top union executives—particularly in Washington—of being corrupt, politically biased, and out of touch with their own members. His platform supports policies that give individual workers more transparency over how their union dues are spent. HE IS ASKING FOR THE UNIONS TO BE RUN BY THE EMPLOYEES, NOT FIRM THE BIG EXECUTIVE POLITICAL ACTORS. THIS IS TO ALIGN THE SYSTEM LIKE DENMARK, WHERE THEIR EXECUTIVES THAT RUN THE UNIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE POLITICAL ACTORS.

He argues that federal laws should protect rank-and-file members from being forced to financially support political candidates or agendas chosen by union bosses.

Trump has successfully broken traditional political alignments by winning heavy support from blue-collar union workers (such as teamsters, manufacturers, and border patrol agents).

He aligns with these workers on implementing heavy tariffs to protect American manufacturing jobs from foreign competition and tightening borders to protect domestic wages from being undercut by unauthorized labor.

BUT Trump’s policy actions and judicial appointments have historically aligned with traditional republicans goals that weaken union structures as he has expressed support for national Right-to-Work legislation, which allows workers in unionized shops to opt out of paying union dues while still receiving union benefits.

By contrast - in Denmark, membership IS 100% voluntary, but non-members do NOT get union-negotiated protections!

So you know this idea that we’re just gonna be like oh we wanna be like Denmark but not actually look at what’s really happening in the United States and then not actually realizing that yeah we have a huge country far bigger than Denmark with 400 million people and they’ve got 6 million people and we’ve got different states with different laws and a lot more freedom to build the society with the individual preferences of people who don’t align culturally or in values, and then on top of it, we’ve got loads of people going to college becoming educated, and they always take political science as part of their education, but they never take a finance class and then they formed political opinions that they themselves actually believe in and never have to actually do any kind of analysis as to if they’re political opinion is even financially accurate.

Essentially, this country has an incredibly low financial and economic education, they confuse political theory with economics — capitalism is political theory for many /- when it’s not actually — there are series about capitalism in the political science department. The capitalism is simply finance structure !!!

the people of the country and then the leaders of the country are NOT using the world standard model and everybody is confused, which is why people just can’t understand why Donald Trump is working in the Republican Party and why he left the Democrats of New York people don’t understand it from a financial economic perspective!

CHAPTER 3 The RUB!

Outside of North America, if you say an economy is "LIBERAL" (or neoliberal), you mean it is a free-market, capitalist economy with low government intervention. The ownings, the money is diversified amongst private owners like you can have a business and your husband can have a business and I can have a business and we can all have a business and the government is not the business owner. They don’t own the means of development. The government does not OWN the businesses. The government is GOVERNING. They are not corporate. GOV IS not the engine of capital OK, that is a liberal liberal liberal liberal idea.

This stems academically from 18th-century "Classical Liberalism" (Adam Smith), which argued that individuals should have maximum freedom FROM government control.

In this context, a "liberal" economic policy means:

Free Trade — Abolishing tariffs and barriers between countries ( except when necessitated to protect national interest OR WHEN POWER DYNAMICS REQUIRE)

Deregulation:Removing government red tape so corporations can innovate and grow faster.

Privatization: Letting private PEOPKE RUN businesses & run industries rather than the state.

Low Taxes: Keeping corporate and individual taxes minimal to incentivize work and investment.

When economists say Denmark has a highly "liberal" labor market, they mean the government does not regulate hiring, firing, or minimum wage. private sector over government —
This aligns in the USA with republicans especially now

The American meaning is OPPOSITE ! “Modern Liberalism"In the United States, the word "liberal" went through a political shift with the FDR's New Deal!!!!

In American politics, a "liberal" favors MORE government regulation, not less. MORE GOV OWNERSHIP NOT LESSB The American definitions flip the global standard!!!!

This is why people are confused on trump!!! Everyone thinks he’s RIGHT. you can’t bang your head against the concrete wall more.

It’s outrageous. The party calling themselves liberal OR LEFT is not by world definitions liberal. They are leaning into fascism — FAR RIGHT which is also technically known as NATIONAL SOCIALISM 🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️ fascism is national socialism fascism is national socialism fascism is national socialism.

Trump is not a national socialist. my God. Mamdani AOC is a national socialist.

They are MISUSING the term democratic socialist, and allowing the public to have a misunderstanding, so they can accomplish their aim for gov control — ie fascism ie the Cuban model!

The real meaning of DMEOCRSTIC socialism means that you’re highly highly capitalist highly highly free market and then you use that to fund state GOVERNED programs as a contract! NOT STATE OWNED — Jesus.

You know how mom Donnie wants to have these grocery stores that offer groceries under the market rate he wants to have CITY (OWNED) GROCERY STORES - and then under cut the actual market to get people into it so that then people will demand more city owned grocery stores and then in 20 years all of your food will be controlled by the government !

Meanwhile, everybody in the world that’s lived in that system and is here in America hoping to escape it — they are levitating into the air like a rocket ship!!

THE TRUE LIBERAL ECONOMIC IDEA IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT that the government is regulating everything and owning everything — it’s THE OPPOSITE! pro-private property pro private business pro pro private capitalism, pro free capitalism in terms of free flow of finance with multi owners of finance capitalism in terms of finance

There are people in New York, calling themselves liberal who voted for someone like MAMDANI because he’s talking the DS system like Denmark, but his belief — his entire party is aligned opposite!! he is intentionally miss directing people the guys like I’m a Democrat socialist oh, and here is a government owned grocery store for you. That’s going to guarantee the prices are lower, which couldn’t be further effing right wing fascist!

That is not liberal at all! THAT’S ALSO NOT DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST!

🤌🏻🤌🏻🤌🏻🤌🏻🤌🏻%%£~*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

The only thing a person with this economic knowledge can do is CURSE!

You can see this in Trump every time he goes and tries to speak to people. He is absolutely infuriated and like his personality, which is kind of like not having much patience to explain anything

Sadly, Trump’s whole ethos of his leadership is if you don’t get it, shut up and go back to school— and then by school… he means WHARTON !!! 😂😂😂😂🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️

FYI : I will likely be running for President again 2032 or maybe 2037 and my motto is going to be what Trump’s should have been all along, but he simply didn’t have the patience!

MATA!

Make America Think Again!

Sadly, because Trump doesn’t have the patience to explain these things and pretty much feels like if you don’t know this information you’re probably not intellectually capable nor interested in which case step aside and let people that know what they’re doing do the thing — his MAGA movement is not being effective at helping people correct their own misunderstandings and identify posers!

Right now outside of the world of finance almost all of my friends who say they are liberal think that Bernie Sanders is liberal. They think that AOC is liberal. They think that Mamdani is liberal — when they are not at all liberal and they are using the misunderstandings of the American public to forward themselves in a distorted way and they know what they’re doing particularly BERNIE knows what he’s doing —

The entire Democrat socialist movement is actually a cover organization for a far right fascist movement.

Never been a fan of Marx and everyone that is a fan or calls themselves a Marxist couldn’t recognize a real working clas...
06/08/2026

Never been a fan of Marx and everyone that is a fan or calls themselves a Marxist couldn’t recognize a real working class person if it hit them upside the head!!!!

They are all middle, upper middle or wealthy class persons who think they’re on a mission for the poor, meanwhile they wouldn’t help you if you were starving!!!!

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DY7swhgy709/?igsh=NGF5ZmtkMWc5cWs=

06/03/2026

Stop Acting Like This Isn’t Serious.

05/12/2026

MARCO RUBIO IS A BOSS !

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to the Press
05/08/2026 01:21 PM EDT

Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Rome, Italy

U.S. Embassy to the Holy See

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks to the Press

Remarks

May 8, 2026

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay, let’s just go to questions. You ready?

QUESTION: So have you managed to —

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for doing this. I wanted to ask you first about your meetings yesterday with Pope Leo. President Trump has had very harsh language and words for the Pope against the backdrop of the war in Iran. Did you make amends with the Pope yesterday?

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, we had a very good meeting. I mean, ultimately it’s important – first of all, we – there’s a lot we work together with, with the church, and we talked about those areas that we’re working together on in different parts of the world. I know everyone’s interested in the other aspects of it, but I expressed – updated them on the situation with Iran, expressed our point of view about why this was important, and the danger that Iran poses to the world, which is largely recognized.

So, obviously the holy father is a spiritual leader, he’s – first and foremost. I mean, that’s his role to play. And obviously the church has always interacted on behalf of a mission for peace and a respect for all of humanity, and – but at the end, it was a very cordial and important meeting, and it’s important to share our points of view and an explanation and an understanding of where we’re coming from. And I thought it was very positive.

QUESTION: Secretary Rubio, you also mentioned talking about the Western Hemisphere with the Pope. And of course, the Catholic Church is instrumental in delivering humanitarian aid to Cuba. I wondered if you discussed that, and whether there was any disagreements on U.S. policy towards Cuba with the Pope.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Oh, we discussed – I mean, we’ve provided $6 million of humanitarian aid, U.S. humanitarian aid that was distributed by Caritas, the Catholic Church agency. We’re prepared to do more. In fact, we’ve offered the regime there $100 million of humanitarian aid that, unfortunately, so far, they have not agreed to distribute to the people in Cuba. So we did the hurricane relief, but we’re offering more, and it’s the regime that’s not accepting it, it’s the regime that’s standing in the way of it.

So we discussed that, and we hope we can do it because we do want to help the people of Cuba, who are being hurt by this incompetent regime that’s destroyed the country and the economy.

QUESTION: Secretary, can I ask about the – the meeting with the Pope. I mean, after this meeting with the Pope, which you described as cordial and productive, are you going to recommend to the President that he stops criticizing the Pope in social media?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Why would I tell you what I’m going to recommend to the President? But beyond that, the President will always speak clearly about how he feels about the U.S. and U.S. policy. The President of the United States is always going to act in what’s in the best interests of the United States. I think we can do that and continue to also have a very productive and fruitful and important relationship with the church, because it plays an important role in the world as well.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can you talk about whether or not —

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, no, no; I called on her. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Secretary Rubio, were there any themes from your conversation yesterday with Pope Leo that resonated with you personally?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, if it was personal, why would I tell you? (Laughter.) No, here’s the bottom line on that, is that the church is an important global institution and has a presence all over the world. I know you guys are fixated on who said what about who at what time; I understand all that, okay. Because media, you guys have headlines, you have editors, you have people that want you to post, and these are interesting stories. But at the end of the day, the Pope just returned from Africa, right? A very important continent with growing Christian populations, many of whom are – who are threatened or feel threatened by the spread of radical Islamic terrorism. So we care about that. The Pope and the church has an interest in Christian communities in Lebanon, a place that we’re very involved in trying to establish a peace between Israel and Lebanon. The church obviously has a very important presence in Latin America. The bishops from Venezuela had just been here a few days earlier. So we shared thoughts about those sorts of things.

I think it’s an opportunity to personally express our point of view from the standpoint of foreign policy in the areas we’re involved in and share insights, but also to gain insights. Because the church has a unique role in many of these countries in terms of the insights and information that they’re receiving. In some cases in the past, the church has been an important interlocutor – not just with governments, but with societies.

And then of course on the practical level, the church plays an important role in humanitarian efforts in different parts of the world, and in many places has served as a facilitator of U.S. humanitarian assistance such as I highlighted a moment ago when it comes to Cuba.

Yes, go ahead. I’ll get to you, I promise. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can you say in your meeting with Prime Minister Meloni whether you talked about the possibility of withdrawing U.S. troops from Italy as well as the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO altogether?

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, we’re – I – we didn’t discuss any specifics like that, and that’s a decision for the President to make. It’s a decision every president makes. The fact of the matter, though, is – and I said publicly, and I’ve said repeatedly – I’ve been a strong supporter of NATO throughout my career in the Senate and even now. One of the advantages of being in NATO is that it allows us to have forces deployed in Europe in bases that allow us a logistical ability to project power in case of contingencies.

Well, we had a contingency. And some countries in Europe – some countries in Europe like Spain, as an example – denied us the use of those bases for a very important contingency, that in some ways the denial of those bases actually impeded the mission. Not severely, but it had a cost, and in fact even created some unnecessary dangers. So, if the – if one of the main reasons why the U.S. is in NATO is the ability to have forces deployed in Europe that we could project to other contingencies, and now that’s no longer the case, at least when it comes to some NATO members, that’s a problem, and it has to be examined.

But ultimately that’s a decision for the President to make. His team, and people like myself and others, will provide him what those potential options are, but ultimately he’ll have to make that decision. He hasn’t made those decisions yet. As far as recent news of deployments, like for example the one – those were all already ongoing. For example, in Germany, the troops that we’ll withdraw, which represent less than 14 percent of our total troop presence there, that’s already pre-programmed. And in fact, all it did is take us back to where we were in 2022. And so there was always a plan to do some shifting within NATO.

As far as broader changes, that’s – I don’t have an announcement for you on that today, but that’s a decision for the President to make. Certainly, we’ll present both options and perspectives, but we’re – that – I don’t have anything new to announce on that today.

Yes. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, your former colleagues on the Hill, the Republican senators, believe that troops’ withdrawal will embolden Putin and will benefit Russia. Do you agree with this?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Will do what, I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Troops’ withdrawal will embolden Putin and benefit Russia. Do you agree with that assessment?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, in the end, the United States is always – the President is going to always do what’s in the national interest. We have global obligations all over the world. We have troop deployments all over the world, and those are constantly shifting and changing. For example, we increased troop presence in NATO in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine. So, we’re always making these decisions, and there were some already previewed in – before any of this had happened in terms of the base denials.

But in the end, look, here the bottom line is that we always – while we may be the most powerful country in the world and we may have the most resources, our resources are not unlimited. We have to always assign resources around the world, including military resources, on the basis of what serves the national interest. That’s a decision the President has to make, especially within the context of recent developments by some countries within NATO and the stance they’ve taken towards the United States. But no decision’s been made on that yet; that’s something the President’s still working through.

QUESTION: Have you managed to bridge differences on Iran, both with Rome and with the Vatican?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. I mean, I don’t – I think we – everybody agrees that Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable – everyone. I mean, I don’t know of anyone who thinks it’s a good idea for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, except the ayatollah. So I think the question is, what do you do about it? And the President’s actually trying to do something about it. And so, I mean, that’s – I don’t know what the – I don’t think there’s any disagreement that they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I think the question is, what do you do about it? And we’ve had – every American president says, oh, they can’t have a nuclear weapon. This is the first American President that’s actually trying to do something concrete about it. I don’t know who would dis-agree with that. I mean, it’s an important thing that has to be confronted.

QUESTION: And we talked to officials —

QUESTION: Can you give us —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can you give us an update on the status of negotiations with Iran right now?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we should know something today. I mean, we’re expecting a response from them. We’ll see what their response entails. The hope is it’s something that – it can put us into a serious process of negotiation. Obviously, we’ve seen the reporting overnight that Iran has established or trying to establish some agency that’s going to control traffic in the straits. That would be very – that would actually be unacceptable. I mean, we’re – the normalizing of their controlling of an international waterway is both illegal and it’s just something that’s unacceptable. And the world has to start asking itself what is it willing to do if Iran tries to normalize a control of an international waterway. I think that’s unacceptable.

So – but we’re expecting a response from them today at some point. We have not received that yet as the last – in the last hour, but perhaps that will come. Their system is still highly fractured and a bit dysfunctional as well, so that may be serving as an impediment. I hope it’s a serious offer. I really do.

All right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can you confirm there’s a resume of the talks between Israel and Lebanon next week? You expect that to —

SECRETARY RUBIO: We expect talks. I can’t – I don’t know if we’ve set the exact date yet, but we expect that there’ll be additional talks. Look, the – we – it’s one of the areas that I think we can work with Italy on; they can play a very productive role and a constructive role in providing resources to the Lebanese Government. In the end, we all share the same goal – and by “all,” I mean including the Lebanese Government and the Israel Government – that we want the relations between Israel and Lebanon, its legitimate government, to be very strong. The impediment to that is Hizballah – again, an Iranian agent, Hizballah, who is victimizing not just Israelis, but Hizballah is also victimizing Lebanon. The reason why Lebanon faces bombings, the reason why Lebanon faces violence, is because of Hizballah. It is Hizballah that’s imposing this on them.

So I think we all share the same goal, which is a strong Lebanese Government that doesn’t have an armed Hizballah operating within its national territory and posing a threat to any of its neighbors. And to do that, we have to empower and equip the Lebanese Government to be able to confront that threat, and I think Italy – and other countries, but Italy in particular – can play an important role in not just helping equip the government, but in cutting off the illicit financing that supports – helping them to cut off the financing that supports Hizballah and the danger they pose.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Is it possible to get a peace deal on Lebanon without first solving the conflict with Iran? How linked are those two conflicts right now?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I mean, Hizballah is an Iranian agent, 100 percent. I mean, Hizballah wouldn’t exist without Iran’s support. So – but I think it’s possible. I mean, Hizballah has been both weakened but still capable of inflicting damage and doing terroristic activities, as we’ve seen.

So, I think the way I would phrase it is we’re not going to negotiate with Iran over Hizballah because Hizballah is a dangerous – other than if they’re willing to stop funding them and supporting them. I think our negotiations are with – our role is with the Lebanese Government. Lebanon should be governed by the Lebanese Government. It should not have a terrorist group operating within its national territory that poses a threat both to its own people, including the Shia population, and to the government and to Israel and to its other neighbors. So, that’s what we’re going to focus on.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can you come back to Cuba a little bit? The United States, including yesterday, are ramping up sanctions against Cuba, the regime, and all that. With the exchange with the Pope, did you feel any convergence of views on that and on U.S. policy?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, let me clarify something for you: Our sanctions are against a company named GAESA.

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay? This is a holding company set up by generals in Cuba that has generated billions of dollars of revenue, none of which benefits the Cuban people. Not one cent of it benefits the Cuban people. You understand this, right? I don’t know if you know this. There’s the Cuban Government, and they have a budget, and then there’s this private company that has more money than the government does. None of the money in that company goes to build a single road, a single bridge, provide a single grain of rice to a single Cuban, other than the people that are part of GAESA. So that’s what we’re sanctioning, is a company that basically is taking anything that makes money in Cuba and illegally putting it into the pockets of a few regime insiders.

So, that’s not sanctions on the Cuban people because the Cuban people don’t benefit from GAESA. It’s a sanction against this company that is stealing from the Cuban people to the benefit of a few. And we didn’t discuss those sanctions yesterday, but we imposed them yesterday, and we’re going to be doing more, by the way.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about —

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary – sorry – many people thought that your job was a mission impossible after the Trump’s attacks, heavy attacks, on —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Which mission? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: The visit.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Mission impossible?

QUESTION: The mission – yes. What’s your judgment at the end of the visit? Mission accomplished?

SECRETARY RUBIO: We work with the Vatican on a lot of things. Our relationship between – for example, our mission here in the Vatican, like I told you, I mean, we’re working together on humanitarian issues. We’re focused on other issues as well. The President’s perspective is clear. He thinks that Iran is a threat, and it needs to be addressed. And that position remains unchanged. And I think we’re capable of having that position and expressing that position clearly, and also working cooperatively, and – as we have for a century; in fact, we have for decades – with the Vatican and with the Catholic Church, who has a global presence.

QUESTION: Is it —

QUESTION: Did you explicitly ask the Pope to stop his criticism of the Iran war?

SECRETARY RUBIO: I’m not going to discuss what I talked about with the Pope. But I’m not going to ask him to – that’s not the purpose of the – I told you guys before I even came here, and that is that we have a very strong relationship with the Vatican. We work with them on a lot of things around the world. This was a trip that had been planned even before all these things had happened. So why – just as an example, why would I not want to hear the perspectives of the most important, many cases, far-reaching religious leader in the world on his perspectives about what he saw on his trip to Africa, or what his bishops and others and agencies are hearing in the Western Hemisphere? Or the plight of Christians in Africa but also those in Lebanon, a place that – so of course we’re going to engage with him on these things. That was the purpose of our meeting, and in that realm, it was very, very productive. And it was a good meeting because we were able to talk about these different areas in the world where they have a presence, where they are engaged, and we are as well, and of course find opportunities to either continue cooperating where that already exists, like in Cuba, or expand our cooperation in other places where it makes sense.

QUESTION: Is it fair to expect a phone call between the President and the Pope anytime soon?

SECRETARY RUBIO: I don’t know, maybe. I don’t know. I mean, it could happen.

QUESTION: May I ask you about Iran, if possible? You declared that Operation Epic Fury was over, but given all these military actions that we’re seeing on the ground, what does “over” mean militarily?

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, no, Operation Epic Fury was an offensive operation designed to destroy their missile launches, their navy, their air force; and it achieved that – and their factories – and it achieved that. What you saw yesterday was U.S. destroyers moving through international waters being fired upon by the Iranians, and the U.S. responded defensively to protect themselves. That’s what you saw. I mean, that’s separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury.

The – I don’t – what – if you fire a drone or a missile at our destroyer, what are we supposed to do? Let it hit it? We have to respond to it. We have to knock down the missile, and we have to knock out whatever it is that launched that missile. The alternative is to let it sink one of our ships; that’s crazy. So of course we responded to it.

QUESTION: Well, I guess but the point is if there’s not much ceasing in the firing – because we’ve seen so many attacks —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, you should ask that of the Iranians; don’t ask me. We didn’t fire; they fired on us. My point is if you fire at a U.S. Navy ship, what are we supposed to do? Say, “Oh, there’s a ceasefire, we’re not going to shoot down your drone?” That’s a stupid question. That’s a stupid position to take. Of course we fired back at them. They were shooting at us. That’s what I would expect to do. Only stupid countries don’t shoot back when you’re shot at, and we’re not a stupid country.

QUESTION: Do you expect that their – or have you conveyed any red lines to Iran where if the ceasefire, or whatever you call it – if they cross certain red lines —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Oh, the red line is clear. They threaten Americans, they’re going to get blown up. I mean, that’s – how much clearer can you be than that? If you fire on – if you are a missile-launching guy, whatever they call that job, and you’re sitting there, and you fire a missile at the United States and we saw you fire it, we’re going to hit you. Of course we are. Who doesn’t do that? Unless you want to get your ship sunk. We’re not going to let our ships get sunk by the Iranians with their little – their drones that they’re firing. They don’t have a navy anymore, but they bring out these little Boston whaler fishing boats and they try to swarm you – we’re going to blow those boats up if they’re coming towards our boats. I don’t know if that’s a red line, but I hope they know it is by now.

So if I were one of these Iranians on a fast boat and they tell you, hey, your mission is to go after a U.S. destroyer, you’re probably not going to survive. I think that’s a red line.

QUESTION: Going back to European reaction —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Does anybody have – and I’m – any of you have any other questions? This guy’s like a monopoly over here. And then I’ll answer your questions.

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yes.

QUESTION: But I just —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay, come on. I’m trying to be fair.

QUESTION: The President has expressed disappointment in support, or lack thereof, in Europe. Was there any discussion today in your meeting with Prime Minister Meloni or Foreign Minister Tajani about them providing escorts in the Strait of Hormuz or —

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, we didn’t get to that level of specificity about what they – here’s the bottom line, okay. Everybody says Iran is a threat. Everybody says that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. Okay. But you’ve got to do something about it. The President’s trying to do something about it. And I don’t understand why anybody would not be supportive of that, and he doesn’t understand, and rightfully so, why somebody wouldn’t supportive of that.

But here’s a more fundamental problem. Iran now claims that they own, that they have a right to control, an international waterway. They claim that they have a right to control it. What is the world going to do about that? Is the world going to accept that Iran now controls an international waterway? Because if the world is prepared to accept that, then be ready because there’s like 10 other countries that are going to start doing the same thing in their international waterways or in international waterways near their countries. That’s an unacceptable thing that they’re trying to normalize.

So if the answer is no, we don’t think Iran should be able to control the Straits of Hormuz, then the next question’s going to be for everyone, well, what are you going to do about it? What is the world prepared to do about it? And we’re trying to do something about it diplomatically. We have a resolution at the United Nations that we’re trying to move forward in which the world and the UN will have an opportunity through the Security Council to vote and say we are not going to allow them to mine the straits; we’re not going to allow them to try to control the straits. And by the way, you have a bunch of humanitarian aid that’s trapped inside the Persian Gulf and needs to be released and has not been able to move. We’re going to give the world a chance to pronounce itself on it. And if Russia or China or some other country decide to veto it, then you know what the impediment is.

But the fundamental question every country – not Italy, every country – needs to ask themselves is, are you going to normalize a country claiming to control an international waterway? Because if you normalize that, you’ve set a precedent that’s going to get repeated in a dozen other places. And if the answer is no, we don’t want to normalize it, then you’d better have something more than just strongly worded statements to back it up. And that’s the point I’ve made in all of my visits, not just here. I didn’t come to Italy just to make that point. I would say that to any country that complains about the straits because that’s what we potentially are facing unless we get a good deal from the Iranians, and we’re waiting to hear that today.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can I move to Taiwan, actually? Sorry to geographically go around the world.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay.

QUESTION: The parliament just approved a pretty big, massive defense bill today or last night. There was a little bit less than what the president of Taiwan was asking for, but nonetheless it’s a big bill, including money to buy U.S. arms. What is your reaction to that, if any, and specifically in the context of the trip you’re going to be doing with the President next week in China?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, all I would say in the context of the trip next week, and Taiwan in specific, is the United States does – our policy remains unchanged. We don’t want to see any forced or compelled change in the situation now. We think it would be destabilizing to the world. It’s – our position on that has been – we’ve heard, obviously, the Chinese position and we’ve made our position on that clear as well. And I imagine that will be discussed in the trip, but I don’t think it will be a feature of our trip, but it’ll certainly be an item that’s discussed. We think it’s to the benefit of China, the United States, and the world writ large that there be stability in the straits there, and that continues to be our position, and that’s the one we’ll continue to stand by and advocate for.

All right, I have time for one more and we’ve got to leave.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, may I ask about Ukraine before you go?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.

QUESTION: You spoke with Lavrov recently, and they targeted a kindergarten in Ukraine even after they advocated for ceasefire. Where does the negotiation stand right now?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, right now the negotiations aren’t – we’re not – we played, tried to play, a mediator role in that. So far it has not led to a fruitful outcome for a variety of reasons. We remain prepared to play that role if it can be productive. We don’t want to waste our time and invest time and energy into an effort that’s not moving forward. But if we see an opportunity to act as a mediator that brings both sides closer to a peace deal, we’d like to see it. Our position at the end of the day is that this war is a tragedy. Both sides are paying a very heavy price for it, both economic and obviously at a human level. It’s destructive. We’re against it. And anytime you tell me about strikes on people – every time I hear about these things, it just reminds us of why this war needs to end.

And while we’re prepared to play whatever role we can to bring it to a peaceful diplomatic resolution, unfortunately, right now those efforts have stagnated, but we always stand ready if those circumstances change.

Okay, guys.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one other?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, and then I got to go, and I apologize.

QUESTION: One on Africa. I mean, the President committed last year to personally intervening to help try to end the war in Sudan. The Pope, in one of his addresses, called this one of the world’s greatest tragedies. Did this come up at all in your discussions?

SECRETARY RUBIO: We didn’t —

QUESTION: And do you see any movement towards (inaudible)?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, we discussed Africa broadly, and of course Sudan being an incredible tragedy. We’ve been heavily engaged through that Quad process. Obviously, Sudan has become in some way sort of a proxy engagement between multiple countries who are behind some of the elements that are fighting. There are other countries that are not directly involved but have allowed their national territories to be used as a way to ship weaponry. We recently had a pretty positive announcement for the first time on a statement of principles, but we have to give it some action.

What we’ve really been focused on in Sudan is sort of establishing a humanitarian ceasefire that allows us to provide aid to people that are suffering tremendously there, but not doing so at the expense of a broader deal. So, we do want the humanitarian ceasefire where we can identify a number of communities that are safe havens for the distribution of humanitarian aid for what is one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises ever. We – but you can’t do that unless you have the security to be able to provide the aid. But we don’t – we also want – we don’t want that to be the final outcome.

In addition to the humanitarian corridors and the humanitarian sites, we need to bring this conflict to an end. And the way to bring this conflict to an end is for the countries and the parties who are supporting the fighting elements to force these elements toward a peace deal that ends this conflict. And as I said, we’ve been very involved in that Quad process, invested a lot of time in it, continue to be engaged on a daily basis, and in fact have people in our bureau in Africa as well as our Special Envoy Massad Boulos involved almost daily on this topic.

So okay, guys. I got to run. I apologize. Thank you.

QUESTION: Were you surprised by your Italian origins?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Huh?

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, were you surprised by your Italian origins?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, not surprised today. I learned about it in 2017 when PBS did a “Finding Your Roots” special. That’s where I found it.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay.

Address

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C., DC
20500

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Prez Gizzy 3000 posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share